HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #02 - Discussion Item�yr
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
I NT ERPOVA 16 ORANOUM
I' .n L� �.+± a
TO Honorabi ayor and Member DATE 54 Maroh 28, 1986 FILEHIA-86-26
of the Commission ' r , iCasino Espanol Lease
II� 1-,�, .� - S:BJECT
rl Y rij
g , „� : ,{ 1 Agreement
F". r,.
FROM
City Attorney
Y
F EFEaENCES Commission Meeting
3/18/88, Agenda Item 41
ENCLOSURES
At the request of Mayor Suarez, we have reviewed Mason's "Manual.
of Leglalative Procedure", 1979, in conneotion with tho legality
of a proposed motion by Vioe-Mayor Dawkins to have the City
Commission reconsider its action on the above-referenoed item.
Chapter 42 of Mason's work, entitled "Motion To Reconsider"
treats the subject at length and its provisions are fairly
dispositive of the question posed:
.
WHETHER A MOTION TO RECONSIDER MAY BE PROPERLY
ENTERTAINED WHERE THE QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE
RECONSIDERED WAS ACTED UPON AT A PAST MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION?
The answer is in the affirmative.
The following language of Paragraph 6 of Section 461 in Mason's
is clear on this point:
_
—�
"6. A vote upon a reconsideration need not be taken
at the same or the next succeeding meeting, but may be
taken at any time before the rights have intervened in
pursuance of the vote taken or before the status quo
has been changed."
i
This item did not receive an affirmative vote of three members of
the City Commission; accordingly, it was not adopted since the
_
below -mentioned City Charter provision [City Charter Section
4(f)] mandates this affirmative vote:
"....The ayes and noes shall be taken upon the
passage of all ordinances or resolutions and entered
upon the journal of the proceedings of the commission,
and every ordinance or resolution shall require on
final passage, the affirmative vote of a majority of
all the members...."
�T-
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Page 2
March 25, 1988
MIA-86- 25
Additionally, Mason's states:
....°But if the body be equally divided, sempper
presumatur pro neganta, the former law is not changed
because no affirmative action can be taken except by a
majority...."
(Mason's, Section 513, Paragraph 1)
Since no rights have became vested as a result of the City
Commission's vote on March 18, 1986 and so long as the status quo
remains the same, i.e., no substantial change has been made in
°t the City's position with regard to the disposition of the
property in question, the Motion To Reconsider is in order.
As a point of clarification and in order to dispel an erroneous
assumption commonly held, Mason's does not require that the maker
of a Motion To 4dconsider be a Commissioner who voted on the
prevailing side of the question sought to be reconsidered.
(Paragraph 5, Section 464, Mason's Manual of Legislation
Procedure, 1979.)
t
PREPARED BY:
ROBERT F. CLARK
4 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
E LAD/RFC/rr/131
oo: City Manager
/City Clerk
i